Understanding the Marshall Attack

ONTENTS

Contents

Symbols Dedication Acknowledgements Bibliography Introduction Recommendations Typical Ideas in the Marshall Attack

4 4 4 4 5 10 12

1 e4 e5 2 Ìf3 Ìc6 3 Íb5 a6 4 Ía4 Ìf6 5 0-0 Íe7 6 Îe1 b5 7 Íb3 0-0

Part 1: Main Lines with 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 Ìxd5 10 Ìxe5 Ìxe5 11 Îxe5 c6 12 d4 Íd6 13 Îe1 Ëh4 14 g3 Ëh3 1 Spassky Variation 2 Old Main Line: 18...f5/18...bxa4 3 15 Íe3: Other Lines 4 Modern Variation: 15 Îe4

20 31 51 74

Part 2: Other Lines after 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 Ìxd5 10 Ìxe5 Ìxe5 11 Îxe5 c6 5 Refined Rook-Lift: 12 d3 6 Elite Equalizer: 12 d3 Íd6 13 Îe1 Íf5 7 Early Deviations

92 108 120

Part 8 9 10

137 155 170

3: Anti-Marshall Anti-Marshall: 8 a4 Anti-Marshall: 8 h3 Other Anti-Marshall Lines

Index of Variations

190

OLD MAIN LINE: 18...f5/18...bxa4

2 Old Main Line: 18...f5/18...bxa4

1 e4 e5 2 Ìf3 Ìc6 3 Íb5 a6 4 Ía4 Ìf6 5 0-0 Íe7 6 Îe1 b5 7 Íb3 0-0 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 Ìxd5 10 Ìxe5 Ìxe5 11 Îxe5 c6 12 d4 Íd6 13 Îe1 Ëh4 14 g3 Ëh3 15 Íe3 Íg4 16 Ëd3 Îae8 17 Ìd2 Îe6 18 a4 (D)

B

-+-+-tk+ +-+-+pzp p+pvr+-+ +p+n+-+P+-Z-+l+ +LZQV-Zq -Z-S-Z-Z T-+-T-M-

Black is at an important crossroads. White threatens 19 axb5 axb5 20 Íxd5 cxd5 21 Ëxb5. Black can play 18...Ëh5 to protect d5, which was covered in Chapter 1. The alternative is to play for a direct attack on the kingside with ...f5. Black can begin this plan by playing either 18...f5 or 18...bxa4, which often lead to the same position. The move-order that Black chooses should depend on the deviations for White that are possible after each move. The two ways to reach the Main Line are 18...f5 19 Ëf1 Ëh5 20 f4 bxa4 21 Îxa4 and 18...bxa4 19 Îxa4 f5 20 Ëf1 Ëh5 21 f4 (D). In both cases we reach the position at the top of the next column. It is from here that we form the basis for most of this chapter. The move-order that Black chooses will allow White certain deviations, however. Some of these sidelines are dangerous, and some are not. Even though 18...f5 is the traditional way of reaching the Main Line, I think that 18...bxa4 is the better way to head for the diagrammed position, so anyone wanting to play this variation would be well served learning this move-order. In any case, the two

B

-+-+-tk+ +-+-+-zp p+pvr+-+ +-+n+p+q R+-Z-Zl+ +LZ-V-Z-Z-S-+-Z +-+-TQM-

methods to reach the Main Line should be studied together because there are many recurring ideas that are good to know. The variations in this chapter are very tactical in nature and the play is a real slugfest, with both sides trying to get in the bigger and faster punch. Theoretically, Black has been considered to be on rather shaky ground, but there is still unexplored territory despite the line’s historical popularity in both over-the-board and correspondence play. In any case, this chapter shows a lot of thematic ideas in the Marshall Attack that will help Black find his way in other variations as well. Section 2.1: The Old Road 18...f5?! 31 Section 2.2: The New Road 18...bxa4 39 Section 2.3: The Main Line 42

Section 2.1: The Old Road 18...f5?! 1 e4 e5 2 Ìf3 Ìc6 3 Íb5 a6 4 Ía4 Ìf6 5 0-0 Íe7 6 Îe1 b5 7 Íb3 0-0 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 Ìxd5 10 Ìxe5 Ìxe5 11 Îxe5 c6 12 d4 Íd6 13 Îe1 Ëh4 14 g3 Ëh3 15 Íe3 Íg4 16 Ëd3 Îae8 17 Ìd2 Îe6 18 a4 f5?! (D) Black ignores White’s demonstration on the queenside and threatens ...f4 and ...Îh6. If White meets a subsequent ...Îh6 with Ìf1,

32

W

UNDERSTANDING THE MARSHALL ATTACK

-+-+-tk+ +-+-+-zp p+pvr+-+ +p+n+p+P+-Z-+l+ +LZQV-Zq -Z-S-Z-Z T-+-T-M-

then ...Íf3 comes and White no longer has Ëf1 available to parry the mate threat on g2. Now, the Main Line is 19 Ëf1 Ëh5 20 f4 bxa4 21 Îxa4, but there are a couple of other possibilities, of which one is very important. Note that 19 Íxd5 cxd5 20 Ëf1 Ëh5 21 f4 will also transpose into main lines. After the poorly-timed 19 f4?!, the response 19...Îfe8 is always given as the refutation, but I am not sure about this move. After 20 axb5 (worse is 20 Íf2? Íe2 21 Ëc2? Íxf4! as given by Nunn, one possibility being 22 axb5 Íxd2 23 Ëxd2 Íf3 24 Íe3 axb5! ø+) Black plays 20...Íxf4 (D).

W

-+-+r+k+ +-+-+-zp p+p+r+-+ +P+n+p+-+-Z-vl+ +LZQV-Zq -Z-S-+-Z T-+-T-M-

This has been considered to be virtually winning for Black because, but after 21 gxf4? both 21...Îg6 and 21...Îh6 give Black a strong attack while 21 bxc6? Íxg3! (better than 21...Îxe3? 22 Íxd5+ Êh8 23 Îxe3 Íxe3+ 24 Êh1 Íxd2 25 c7!) 22 hxg3 Ëxg3+ leads to mate after either 23 Êh1 Íf3+ or 23 Êf1 Ìf4!. However, after 21 Íf2! I cannot find a good continuation

for Black. For example, 21...Íe2 22 Îxe2 Îxe2 23 bxc6 Îxd2 24 Íxd5+ Êh8 25 Ëf1 looks better for White. All is not lost, however, and 19 f4?! probably is a mistake in view of 19...bxa4! with the idea 20 Îxa4? Íxf4!, when 21 gxf4 is met by 21...Îg6 and Black indeed has a strong attack. Thus we are left with two options for White. The first is the road White takes to head to the Main Line, while the second is the very dangerous ‘Internet Refutation’. We have: A: 19 Ëf1 32 B: 19 axb5!? 37

A) 19 Ëf1 (D)

B

-+-+-tk+ +-+-+-zp p+pvr+-+ +p+n+p+P+-Z-+l+ +LZ-V-Zq -Z-S-Z-Z T-+-TQM-

This is the traditional move. White evicts the black queen and in doing so escapes potential pins along the third rank and prepares to physically block the advance of Black’s f-pawn by playing f4 himself. 19...Ëh5 20 f4 The only real alternative is 20 axb5 (D). This was recommended by Shamkovich and although it is not bad, it never really caught on. Black has: a) 20...axb5?! should favour White because it will almost certainly help to have an open afile for the rook. 21 Íxd5 (21 f4 is also possible, leading to the note to Black’s 20th move below, where Black avoids 20...bxa4, thus allowing 21 axb5) 21...cxd5 22 Ëxb5 f4 23 Íxf4 Íxf4 24 Îxe6 Íxe6 25 gxf4 Ëg6+ 26 Êh1 Ëc2 gives Black some counterplay, but it is hard to believe that it is enough for the missing pawns.

OLD MAIN LINE: 18...f5/18...bxa4

B

-+-+-tk+ +-+-+-zp p+pvr+-+ +P+n+p+q -+-Z-+l+ +LZ-V-Z-Z-S-Z-Z T-+-TQM-

b) 20...f4 is a more sensible attempt to take advantage of White’s move-order and it is probably stronger as well. 21 Íxf4 Íxf4 22 Îxe6 Íxe6 23 Ëe1!? (after 23 gxf4 axb5 Black has compensation according to Nunn, and this assessment has held up in correspondence games) and now: b1) 23...Íh3 24 Ëe4 (24 bxc6!? Êh8 25 Íxd5 Ëxd5 26 Ëe4 may well be a better option) 24...Êh8 25 Ìf1 (25 bxc6 Ìxc3 26 bxc3 Íxd2 27 Ëd3 Îxf2! 28 Êxf2 Íf5 leads to perpetual check) 25...Îe8 26 Ëd3 axb5 27 gxf4 Ìxf4 28 Ìg3 Ëh4 gave Black compensation in McKenna-C.Chandler, corr. 1990-1. b2) 23...Îe8 24 bxc6 Ìc7 looks rather unclear. We now return to 20 f4 (D):

B

-+-+-tk+ +-+-+-zp p+pvr+-+ +p+n+p+q P+-Z-Zl+ +LZ-V-Z-Z-S-+-Z T-+-TQM-

This move is a bit ugly positionally, but something had to be done about the advance of Black’s f-pawn. On the plus side it gives White some more space and controls the e5- and g5squares. Although the e3-bishop is a bit loose,

33

Black is pinned along the a2-g8 diagonal. It is an interesting situation where neither the d5knight nor the e6-rook is pinned, but if one piece moves, the other one will be. For this reason Black sometimes spends a tempo playing ...Êh8 to free up these pieces. 20...bxa4 Black avoids the threatened 21 axb5 axb5 22 Íxd5 cxd5 23 Ëxb5, opens the b-file, and lures White’s rook off the first rank. The a6pawn is left to its fate, but Black hopes that he will be able to generate enough kingside play. To see why this move is supposed to be necessary, let’s look at Black’s other sensible-looking moves: a) 20...Îfe8?! (D).

W

-+-+r+k+ +-+-+-zp p+pvr+-+ +p+n+p+q P+-Z-Zl+ +LZ-V-Z-Z-S-+-Z T-+-TQM-

Black tries to counter White’s attack on b5 and d5 by threatening the e3-bishop, but this natural move is probably just bad for tactical reasons. 21 axb5! axb5 (no better is 21...Îxe3 22 Îxe3 Îxe3 23 bxc6! Îe2 24 Íxd5+ and after either 24...Êf8 or 24...Êh8 White will play 25 h3! Íxh3 26 Íf3 leading to a winning ending for White) 22 Íxd5 cxd5 23 Ëxb5 Ëf7 (23...Íxf4 24 Ëxd5 is simply winning for White, as pointed out by Nunn, while 23...Îxe3 24 Îxe3 Îxe3 25 Ëxd5+ also wins for White) 24 Íf2! æ is given by Nunn. Black is just two pawns down. b) 20...g5?! (D) is a typical thrust that we shall see again and again. Black wants to break down White’s pawnchain on the dark squares at all costs. However, I think this move does not show enough respect for White’s resources and, although complicated, I do not think this line holds up. 21 axb5

34

W

UNDERSTANDING THE MARSHALL ATTACK

-+-+-tk+ +-+-+-+p p+pvr+-+ +p+n+pzq P+-Z-Zl+ +LZ-V-Z-Z-S-+-Z T-+-TQM-

axb5 22 Íxd5! (22 fxg5?! allows Black to escape after 22...f4! 23 Íxf4 Íxf4 24 gxf4 Îxf4 25 Ëd3 Íe2!, when White is forced to take perpetual check by 26 Îa8+ Êg7 27 Îa7+ Êf8 28 Îa8+ Ó-Ó Roelens-Elent, corr. 1996) 22...cxd5 (D) and now:

W

-+-+-tk+ +-+-+-+p -+-vr+-+ +p+p+pzq -+-Z-Zl+ +-Z-V-Z-Z-S-+-Z T-+-TQM-

b1) 23 Ëxb5?! Îh6 24 Ìf1 (after 24 Ëxd5+ Êh8 25 Ëg2? gxf4 26 Íxf4 Íxf4 27 gxf4 Íh3 Æ Black’s attack is very strong) 24...Íf3 25 fxg5 Íxg3 26 Îe2 f4 27 gxh6 Íxe2 28 Ëc6 Íh4 29 Ëe6+ Êh8 30 Íxf4 Íf2+ 31 Êxf2 Îxf4+ 32 Êg1 was drawn in Pietrocola-Elent, corr. 1999 because 32...Îxf1+! 33 Îxf1 Ëg5+ leads to stalemate after either 34 Êh1 Íf3+ 35 Îxf3 Ëg2+ or 34 Êf2 Ëf4+ 35 Êxe2 Ëxf1+ 36 Êxf1. b2) 23 Ëg2?! is murky after 23...Îfe8 24 Ëxd5 (24 Íf2 Ëf7 25 Îxe6 Îxe6 is also unclear) 24...Ëf7 25 Îa8 gxf4 26 Îxe8+ Îxe8 27 Ëxd6 fxe3. b3) By playing 23 fxg5!, White basically calls Black’s bluff. Now 23...Îxe3 is thematic

and forced – Black must play for destruction. 24 Îxe3 f4 25 Îf3! Íxf3 26 Ëxf3 Ëxf3 27 Ìxf3 fxg3 was Fridel-Elent, corr. 1996. White can now play 28 Êg2 gxh2 29 Ìxh2 Íxh2 30 Êxh2 Îf2+ 31 Êg3 Îxb2 32 Êf4 æ. The fireworks are over and White has a big advantage in the endgame. We shall see a similar version of this forcing play in other positions. Here it just does not work, and this line looks like enough reason for Black to avoid 20...g5. c) 20...Êh8 (D).

W

-+-+-t-m +-+-+-zp p+pvr+-+ +p+n+p+q P+-Z-Zl+ +LZ-V-Z-Z-S-+-Z T-+-TQM-

This line is also supposed to be dubious, but maybe it is not so bad. By breaking the pins on the a2-g8 diagonal, Black threatens the e3bishop so White’s reply is forced. Black still loses time and does nothing to address the queenside problems, but White has not found a convincing refutation yet. 21 Íxd5 (21 Íf2 Îh6 22 Ëg2 Íh3 23 Ëf3 Íg4 is a draw) 21...cxd5 22 axb5 and now: c1) 22...Ëe8? 23 bxa6! (Black must always be wary of sacrifices of this nature) 23...Îxe3 24 a7 Îxe1 25 Ëxe1 Ëxe1+ 26 Îxe1 Îa8 27 Îe6 Íc7 (St.Collins-P.Barrett, corr. 1999) and now 28 Êf2! (to stop ...Íe2) followed by 29 Îa6 gives White a big advantage. c2) 22...axb5 23 Ëxb5 (23 Ëg2!? is also possible) 23...Îh6 24 h4! (24 Ìf1 Íf3 25 b3 g5! gave Black good play in Arias Duval-Gimenez, corr. 2003) 24...g5 25 fxg5 Íxg3 26 gxh6 Íh2+ 27 Êh1 and now instead of 27...Ëxh4? 28 Íg5! Ëxg5 29 Îe8 +ø Hage-Horak, corr. 1999, Black should play 27...Íb8 28 Íg5 Íf3+ 29 Ìxf3 Ëxf3+ 30 Êg1 Ëg3+ 31 Êf1 Ëf3+ with a draw. This is a line that could be explored further.

OLD MAIN LINE: 18...f5/18...bxa4

21 Íxd5!? 21 Îxa4 is the Main Line, and will be considered in Section 2.3. 21...cxd5 (D)

W

-+-+-tk+ +-+-+-zp p+-vr+-+ +-+p+p+q p+-Z-Zl+ +-Z-V-Z-Z-S-+-Z T-+-TQM-

22 Ëg2 (D) White attacks the d5-pawn, which is rather difficult to defend. 22 Îxa4?? is a surprisingly common blunder because of 22...Ëe8!. This is a typical tactical idea by which Black attacks the a4-rook and e3-bishop. White resigned immediately in Renet-Nunn, European Team Ch, Haifa 1989, while 23 Íf2 Îxe1 24 Ëxe1 Ëxa4 25 Ëe6+ Îf7 26 Ëxd6 Ëd1+ 27 Ìf1 h6 28 Ëd8+ Êh7 29 Ëxd5 Íh3 0-1 was Kindermann-Lukacs, Budapest 1987.

B

-+-+-tk+ +-+-+-zp p+-vr+-+ +-+p+p+q p+-Z-Zl+ +-Z-V-Z-Z-S-+QZ T-+-T-M-

22...Îfe8 This is the most sensible move, simply offering the d5-pawn, but Black has also tried to shield the pawn with the exchange sacrifice 22...Îe4 (D).

W

35

-+-+-tk+ +-+-+-zp p+-v-+-+ +-+p+p+q p+-ZrZl+ +-Z-V-Z-Z-S-+QZ T-+-T-M-

This interesting idea will probably not hold up to modern (i.e., computer-assisted) scrutiny: a) 23 Ìxe4?! fxe4 24 Îxa4 g5 25 Îxa6 gxf4 (not 25...Íf3? 26 Ëf2 Íxf4 27 Îa5! +ø) and here: a1) 26 gxf4 and now 26...Îf6?! is line ‘b3’ below, but 26...Êh8! holds, since 27 Îxd6 (27 Îea1 Îg8 28 Îa8 Íf8) 27...Îg8 28 f5 Íf3 29 Ëxg8+ Êxg8 30 Îd8+ leads to perpetual check. a2) 26 Îxd6 fxe3 27 Îxe3 Íh3 28 g4 wins a rook but not the game after 28...Ëh4 29 Ëxh3 Ëf2+ 30 Êh1 Îa8 31 Îd8+ Îxd8 32 g5 Îa8 33 Ëe6+ and White must give perpetual check, as has occurred in a few games. b) Therefore White tends to ignore the rook, at least for the time being: 23 Îxa4 g5 24 Îxa6 gxf4 and now: b1) 25 Ìxe4?! fxe4 transposes to line ‘a’ above. b2) 25 Îxd6?! fxe3 (25...Îxe3? 26 Ëxd5+ Êh8 27 Îxe3 fxe3 28 Ëe5+ is winning for White, as pointed out by Nunn) 26 Ìxe4 fxe4 transposes to line ‘a2’. b3) 25 gxf4 is probably best. 25...Îf6 26 Ìxe4 fxe4 and now: b31) 27 Íf2 Îg6 28 Îxd6 (28 Íg3! looks good for White) 28...Îxd6 29 Íg3 Íf3 30 Ëf1 Îg6 31 Êf2 is not so clear, as pointed out by Nunn. Despite the two extra pawns, the opposite-coloured bishops and White’s draughty king give Black reasonable chances. b32) 27 h3! Ëxh3 (27...Îg6 28 Îxd6! Íe6 29 Îxe6 Îxg2+ 30 Êxg2 Ëf3+ 31 Êh2 leaves White with way too much for the queen) 28 Ëxh3 Íxh3 29 Êf2 æ. If Black cannot improve here (and he probably cannot), then 22...Îe4 has to be discarded.